A Serious Question From Religious Right Caveman Bryan Fischer

American Family Association spokesman Bryan Fischer noticed that people didn’t respond very well to his statement that God could have protected the children in Newtown, but “God is not going to go where he’s not wanted,” because he’s a “gentleman.”

Excellent question, Bryan. I would have to say yes, of course, but that doesn’t begin to capture the true essence of Fischer, the Eau de Fischer, if you will. I know Twitter limits us to 140 characters, but here at LGF we have no such constraints.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

If there really is a God, I look forward to the day Fischer leaves this mortal coil and arrives at the Pearly Gates. I picture St Peter escorting Fischer straight to God Himself so He can personally jack-slap the taste out of his mouth and pull the old-school lever that sends Fischer downstairs. I imagine it will be delicious.

If there really is a God, I look forward to the day Fischer leaves this mortal coil and arrives at the Pearly Gates. I picture St Peter escorting Fischer straight to God Himself so He can personally jack-slap the taste out of his mouth and pull the old-school lever that sends Fischer downstairs. I imagine it will be delicious.

Seems telling that Bryan never really mentions the portion of the Trinity that usually was not a raving blood-lusting fiery wrathful lunatic. Maybe this is what you get when you profess literal word-by-word belief in Crazy Vengeful Old-Testament God. Distant-But-Loving New-Testament God sure mellowed out, but we never hear much about him.

Ed over at Gin and Tacos managed to whip up a post of constructive ideas for dealing with this, given that the gun-crazed right will never allow any truly meaningful firearms regulation legislation to go through.

Essentially, ban the sale of new high-capacity magazines, and offer government (federal and/or local) buyback incentives to turn over existing high-capacity magazines or illegally-modified fully-automatic weapons. No questions asked, just head over to your local police department, drop them off, and get a check.

The idea being that, since people would howl from one end of the nation to the other about restricting the sales of the weapons themselves, few people could justify absolutely needing 30 rounds in a magazine instead of 15. It's only inconvenience for legitimate gun owners using their weapons for legitimate reasons, but every extra reload a mass-shooter has to go through buys a little more time for the cops and the victims.

Fischer and Huckabee totally believe that they are good, righteous men. Just like gun fetishists/hoarders are responsible gun owners.

Yep, and just like the Talibanis & Jihadis--they're all "saving" their people from their sins. It's the exact same extremist ideology/pathology, the difference being that (so far) they only support violence against the supposed "sinners" instead of actively engaging in its execution. Give them time--as reserarchok always says, any pathology left untreated will only escalate.

For some reason, Bryan made the point that the worst school massacre in US history did not involve guns.
Actually a gun was peripherally involved but the damage was done by explosives the perp had legally purchased. He was a disgruntled taxpayer, btw, (and where have we heard that before?).

This is part of the reason explosives are so tightly controlled and regulated these days.
I suggest an experiment:
Go to your local WalMart, Bryan, and ask them for a Bushmaster rifle. They'll sell it to you.
Now go back and ask them for a ton of explosives. See what happens.

Ed over at Gin and Tacos managed to whip up a post of constructive ideas for dealing with this, given that the gun-crazed right will never allow any truly meaningful firearms regulation legislation to go through.

Essentially, ban the sale of new high-capacity magazines, and offer government (federal and/or local) buyback incentives to turn over existing high-capacity magazines or illegally-modified fully-automatic weapons. No questions asked, just head over to your local police department, drop them off, and get a check.

The idea being that, since people would howl from one end of the nation to the other about restricting the sales of the weapons themselves, few people could justify absolutely needing 30 rounds in a magazine instead of 15. It's only inconvenience for legitimate gun owners using their weapons for legitimate reasons, but every extra reload a mass-shooter has to go through buys a little more time for the cops and the victims.

The worst school massacre in history did not, as a matter of fact, involve guns. This goes all the way back to 1927. Forty-five people died as an alarm clock detonated a five-hundred-pound dynamite and pyrotol bomb that a guy by the name of Kehoe had hidden in the north end of a school basement.

I wonder if it has occurred to Fischer that it's kind of hard to blame this massacre on the absence of God from the schools, since it occurred more than 30 years before the court decisions that expelled Him from the classroom. So while I understand that God couldn't help the kids & staff at Sandy Hook because He wasn't allowed into the school (\), where the heck was He when Kehoe was planting that bomb?

There is nothing that can ever be said to somebody like Fischer. There are no words (feel like I'm quoting treebeard here) in the tongues of men for how evil he, and people like him, are. They see any act against them as vindication of their ideas. Right now he's reveling in the responses to his question.

The only thing that would hurt somebody like him would be absolute obscurity. That would be his ultimate damnation.

To stop these tragedies I think the mental health, prevention approach will bear the most fruit in the future, not the least because the gun control way is sort of barred; and then these "religious" types are no help either because they seem to secretely delight in these tragedies, as they can use the event to feed their own corrupt sense of self-righteousness.

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

He would gain nothing from rereading that passage. I think he'd most likely think that Jesus was talking about Barack Obama and not him.

I would like to think that we have seen a certain High Water mark - not in wingnuttery, but in their ability to find mainstream acceptance or toleration for their idiotic ideas.

That image of the children being led from the school is the moral equivalent of that photo of the girl running from the napalm attack in Vietnam - the thing that started to turn the tide of public opinion on a vital issue that was tearing America apart.

I think Michelle Malkin just woke up and and realized that the conspiracists she climbed into bed with look much worse in the clear light of day than in the hazy twilight of "rallying to bring down Obama".

I think Michelle Malkin just woke up and and realized that the conspiracists she climbed into bed with look much worse in the clear light of day than in the hazy twilight of "rallying to bring down Obama".

This leads to the "all governments devolve to tyrannies" argument, and the idea that such pieces of hardware, if out there in some numbers, will deter the (name your type of power abuser) from even trying. I think there is some truth to this, from my reading of history. But it should be a quiet thing in the background.

For game hunting, and target shooting. At least as far as that kind of precision rifle goes, the good they do outweighs the harm they cause very greatly. Ojoe isn't talking about a weapon well suited to mass murder.

I think Michelle Malkin just woke up and and realized that the conspiracists she climbed into bed with look much worse in the clear light of day than in the hazy twilight of "rallying to bring down Obama".

Up to now, it has been SOP to embrace anything that seems to put Obama in a negative light. Now they are even embracing this horrible event, and really showing what a bunch of toxic assholes they are and have been.

This leads to the "all governments devolve to tyrannies" argument, and the idea that such pieces of hardware, if out there in some numbers, will deter the (name your type of power abuser) from even trying. I think there is some truth to this, from my reading of history. But it should be a quiet thing in the background.

Oh please. There ain't nothing citizens with a guns can do against the might of the US Army, Navy and Air Force.

Yes, but I think she has that. She did avoid Trump fever, and used her column on NRO to remind readers of how Donald Trump's disrespect for the property of others showed he was no friend to conservative principals. She while she has massive problems, and though I have long ago stopped being a fan of hers, Michelle Malkin is not so delusional as to not understand why trying to Call Newtown a 'false flag' is horrendous.

For game hunting, and target shooting. At least as far as that kind of precision rifle goes, the good they do outweighs the harm they cause very greatly. Ojoe isn't talking about a weapon well suited to mass murder.

if it's semi-auto and accepts a box magazine with a large capacity, it essentially is the weapon used to kill all those kids. Adding a pistol grip and painting it black doesn't change the essential nature of the weapon.

We should get laws like Laura's Law on the books. My town lost two fine citizens to a disturbed guy with a semi-auto, and you could see it coming, and the guy refused treatment of any kind, and he's dead now too; a swat team hunted him down in the woods and took him out.

The weapon used by James Earl Ray was a common Remington hunting rifle.

Lee Harvey Oswald used an Italian bold action rifle of a caliber that the Italian Army was actually moving away from during WWII, as they felt it lacked lethality. Lethality, however, is always given a boost when the weapon is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it to its full potential. And this Oswald knew how to do, turning the training he had been given to defend America to attack her instead by striking down one of her best and bravest.

if it's semi-auto and accepts a box magazine with a large capacity, it essentially is the weapon used to kill all those kids.

This is straining the bounds of rationality. As militaries the world over well know, long rifles of large caliber are very badly suited to close quarters use (which would certainly encompass anything indoors short of a football stadium). If these were essentially the same, untold billions would not have been spent making the change over the last fifty years.

A perfectly strong and damning case can be made for dramatically increased gun control legislation without straining facts.

Lee Harvey Oswald used an Italian bold action rifle of a caliber that the Italian Army was actually moving away from during WWII, as they felt it lacked lethality. Lethality, however, is always given a boost when the weapon is in the hands of someone who knows how to use it to its full potential. And this Oswald knew how to do, turning the training he had been given to defend America to attack her instead by striking down one of her best and bravest.

if it's semi-auto and accepts a box magazine with a large capacity, it essentially is the weapon used to kill all those kids. Adding a pistol grip and painting it black doesn't change the essential nature of the weapon.

These guys are so used to ramping it up and doubling down and finding applause and acceptance for doing so...It is starting to look like they have just gone over the Rhetorical Cliff and they don't even know it yes, like the Coyote flailing his legs in thin air before he falls to the canyon floor...

Yes, but I think she has that. She did avoid Trump fever, and used her column on NRO to remind readers of how Donald Trump's disrespect for the property of others showed he was no friend to conservative principals. She while she has massive problems, and though I have long ago stopped being a fan of hers, Michelle Malkin is not so delusional as to not understand why trying to Call Newtown a 'false flag' is horrendous.

But self awareness is not enough. So I say this (and I'll likely send it her as well):

Michelle, you need to disassociate yourself from those conspiracists. All conservatives who are aware do, for otherwise they'll be the ruin of us. They have become evil doers, and we must not stand with them or America will not stand with us. They'll call us "traitors" for our denouncing them, but there's nothing for it. Justice demands they be held to account for their lies.

This is straining the bounds of rationality. As militaries the world over well know, long rifles of large caliber are very badly suited to close quarters use (which would certainly encompass anything indoors short of a football stadium). If these were essentially the same, untold billions would not have been spent making the change over the last fifty years.

A perfectly strong and damning case can be made for dramatically increased gun control legislation without straining facts.

ojoe didn't specify caliber or barrel length.

Again, if you concentrate on how the weapon looks, and not its capabilities, you miss the point. During the assault weapons ban of the 90s they continued to make perfectly legal versions of the AR15 by simply changing some essentially cosmetic features and changing the magazine size.

Again, to quote the page:

What they are really talking about are three features - the fact that these rifles are semi automatic, that they are designed to accept high capacity magazines and that they are often - not always but often - chambered for small, high velocity rounds, rounds designed to break up in the body and cause maximum damage.

I'm an atheist because I simply can't bring myself to believe in God, knowing what I do about the universe and how it works.

But I tell ya, Bryan Fischer and his ilk make a helluva lot easier to be an atheist.

Agreed on both counts. I've been an atheist pretty much most of my life. By the time I was in my teens, all the stories and myths I was being taught in church had failed to resonate with me. I still went through the motions but by the time I was out of high school and on my own, I'd stopped going to church and stopped trying to force myself to believe in God. I think there's far too much wonder in the real universe to get caught up in superstition and myth.

That said, assholes like Fischer and Huckabee make it a lot easier to be an atheist, because the God they profess to believe in is such a malevolent, sanctimonious, evil bastard that I wouldn't want to worship him anyway.

But self awareness is not enough. So I say this (and I'll likely send it her as well):

Michelle, you need to disassociate yourself from those conspiracists. All conservatives who are aware do, for otherwise they'll be the ruin of us. They have become evil doers, and we must not stand with them or America will not stand with us. They'll call us "traitors" for our denouncing them, but there's nothing for it. Justice demands they be held to account for their lies.

That you can write to her and use the word 'us' gives me pause, renunciation of fandom notwithstanding.

Again, if you concentrate on how the weapon looks, and not its capabilities, you miss the point. During the assault weapons ban of the 90s they continued to make perfectly legal versions of the AR15 by simply changing some essentially cosmetic features and changing the magazine size.

Again, to quote the page:

Yes, the entire point would be that the characteristics you stated (semi-auto rifle with large magazine) are not sufficient to differentiate between the two. You stated in #76 that they are 'essentially the same' conditional on only those features; this is not really correct.

So, all those on the right talking about mental health...
Why have you been opposed to it for so long?
Why do your refuse to pay for it?
Please, stop the sham argument.
You guys want nothing to do with the Fed providing mental healtcare.

Exactly. Unless we want to live in a Minority Report world, limiting access to weapons and ammo is all we've got.

It's not just about limiting, but about securing. Own a weapon? Must provide proof off ownership of a certified safe or lock-box for the weapon. If that weapon is used in a crime and was taken because it was not properly secured, the owner becomes fully criminally liable for whatever crime was committed with it.

Collector-types wouldn't have any issues with this, because they're usually already secure in their items. The gun companies themselves would shit bricks because they'd lose out on sales. The lobbying will be insane.

So, all those on the right talking about mental health...
Why have you been opposed to it for so long?
Why do your refuse to pay for it?
Please, stop the sham argument.
You guys want nothing to do with the Fed providing mental healtcare.

Talking about mental health is such bullshit. They're using it as a distraction so that no one talks about guns.

You can't even buy a truckload of fertilizer to make your own explosives... not until you demonstrate how many acres you have under cultivation and what you're growing and how much fertilizer is needed right at the moment for this particular growing season because you can't just get a few years worth and stockpile it....

I'll tell you what, after today's crap anyone who's still willing to vote for a politician that goes to Fischer to kiss his ring and receive a benediction needs to have their frigging head examined. Ditto for anyone who thinks Huckabee is a "kindly uncle" type, "cool" because of his guitar playing, or a suitable candidate for anything above the position of dog catcher.

I'll tell you what, after today's crap anyone who's still willing to vote for a politician that goes to Fischer to kiss his ring and receive a benediction needs to have their frigging head examined. Ditto for anyone who thinks Huckabee is a "kindly uncle" type, "cool" because of his guitar playing, or a suitable candidate for anything above the position of dog catcher.

I'll tell you what, after today's crap anyone who's still willing to vote for a politician that goes to Fischer to kiss his ring and receive a benediction needs to have their frigging head examined. Ditto for anyone who thinks Huckabee is a "kindly uncle" type, "cool" because of his guitar playing, or a suitable candidate for anything above the position of dog catcher.

I'll tell you what, after today's crap anyone who's still willing to vote for a politician that goes to Fischer to kiss his ring and receive a benediction needs to have their frigging head examined. Ditto for anyone who thinks Huckabee is a "kindly uncle" type, "cool" because of his guitar playing, or a suitable candidate for anything above and including the position of dog catcher.

Someone called into an NPR show I was listening to in the car this morning, and said pretty much exactly the same thing as Fischer. He was convinced that "immorality" caused the Newtown shootings, and that the solution was to "get God back into the schools."

Fischer's not an outlier. Fischer and Mike Huckabee and James Dobson are speaking for a lot of people. This is how the religious right is spinning the atrocity.

You can't even buy a truckload of fertilizer to make your own explosives... not until you demonstrate how many acres you have under cultivation and what you're growing and how much fertilizer is needed right at the moment for this particular growing season because you can't just get a few years worth and stockpile it....

What kind of commie country would restrict the fertilizer I need to feed my family?

Ed over at Gin and Tacos managed to whip up a post of constructive ideas for dealing with this, given that the gun-crazed right will never allow any truly meaningful firearms regulation legislation to go through.

Essentially, ban the sale of new high-capacity magazines, and offer government (federal and/or local) buyback incentives to turn over existing high-capacity magazines or illegally-modified fully-automatic weapons. No questions asked, just head over to your local police department, drop them off, and get a check.

The idea being that, since people would howl from one end of the nation to the other about restricting the sales of the weapons themselves, few people could justify absolutely needing 30 rounds in a magazine instead of 15. It's only inconvenience for legitimate gun owners using their weapons for legitimate reasons, but every extra reload a mass-shooter has to go through buys a little more time for the cops and the victims.

If they want to use a AR-15 for hunting why not just have a 5 round clip like most, not all hunting rifles use.

Republicans, you all may talk a good game about economics being your motivating agenda but face facts, your party has become the home of religious extremist kooks like this one. Fischer's comments are not mainstream of any of the Abrahamic religions (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Mormon, Judaic or even as far as I can recall Muslim thought).

You have an ideology based on cult leaders making shit up to justify political agendas.

9/11 happens? God is angry. Madman kills a score of kids (KIDS!) God is angry. Vote like we want and God will be happy and make us all millionaires......

Three days before 20 year-old Adam Lanza killed his mother, then opened fire on a classroom full of Connecticut kindergartners, my 13-year old son Michael (name changed) missed his bus because he was wearing the wrong color pants.

“I can wear these pants,” he said, his tone increasingly belligerent, the black-hole pupils of his eyes swallowing the blue irises.

“They told me I could wear these,” he insisted. “You’re a stupid bitch. I can wear whatever pants I want to. This is America. I have rights!”

“You can’t wear whatever pants you want to,” I said, my tone affable, reasonable. “And you definitely cannot call me a stupid bitch. You’re grounded from electronics for the rest of the day. Now get in the car, and I will take you to school.”

I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me.

Yes, the entire point would be that the characteristics you stated (semi-auto rifle with large magazine) are not sufficient to differentiate between the two. You stated in #76 that they are 'essentially the same' conditional on only those features; this is not really correct.

Although, speaking of straining credulity, linking to the primary light machine gun of WW2 and saying it couldn't decimate a couple of classrooms of kids is stretching it, isn't it?

Plus, the M16 was really more of a replacement for the M1 (especially if we only consider semi-auto fire).

Republicans, you all may talk a good game about economics being your motivating agenda but face facts, your party has become the home of religious extremist kooks like this one. This is not mainstream of any of the Abrahamic religions (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Mormon, Judaic or even as far as I can recall Muslim thought).

You have an ideology based on cult leaders making shit up to justify political agendas.

9/11 happens? God is angry. Madman kills a score of kids (KIDS!) God is angry. Vote like we want and God will be happy and make us all millionaires......

That is the type to whom the GOP has become hostage to.

Sort your shit out Republicans.

It's bad. They have combined religion with some kind of Randian-fuck the poor ideology.

Someone called into an NPR show I was listening to in the car this morning, and said pretty much exactly the same thing as Fischer. He was convinced that "immorality" caused the Newtown shootings, and that the solution was to "get God back into the schools."

Fischer's not an outlier. Fischer and Mike Huckabee and James Dobson are speaking for a lot of people. This is how the religious right is spinning the atrocity.

And then they accuse Obama of politicizing it, quoting the supposed Alinsky tactic of "never let a crisis go to waste." The religious right is only promoting the same agenda they always do, not addressing the chance of another massacre at all.

Someone called into an NPR show I was listening to in the car this morning, and said pretty much exactly the same thing as Fischer. He was convinced that "immorality" caused the Newtown shootings, and that the solution was to "get God back into the schools."

Fischer's not an outlier. Fischer and Mike Huckabee and James Dobson are speaking for a lot of people. This is how the religious right is spinning the atrocity.

Belief in evolution is often taken by the religious right as a broad proxy for secularism and general faithless/godlessness, the neanderthals like Fischer believe that there is a direct correlation between that and these kinds of massacres.

At some level most of the righties probably know that the idea of arming teachers is crazy and unworkable. They are out of ideas and grasping at these pitiful straws to protect their holy right to possess a steel and plastic dildo.

Belief in evolution is often taken by the religious right as a broad proxy for secularism and general faithless/godlessness, the neanderthals like Fischer believe that there is a direct correlation between that and these kinds of massacres.

That woman has done a huge disservice to her 'cause' by publicizing her son that way. The kid is only 13, he has a right to privacy. Now he'll be branded a potential murdering freak the rest of his days, even if his behavioral problems resolve.

At some level most of the righties probably know that the idea of arming teachers is crazy and unworkable. They are out of ideas and grasping at these pitiful straws to protect their holy right to possess a steel and plastic dildo.

Let's be even more fair: a very specific shape and form of steel and plastic dildo.

That woman has done a huge disservice to her 'cause' by publicizing her son that way. The kid is only 13, he has a right to privacy. Now he'll be branded a potential murdering freak the rest of his days, even if his behavioral problems resolve.

I agree, and the woman who wrote it has also written some extremely inappropriate things about her other children as well, on her blog.

I can understand her fear,her terror,even though my son is not at all violent nor does he buy into all that macho nonsense about guns and being a tough guy. If anything my kid is too gentle of a spirit, he could barely fight back when he was attacked in a middle school bathroom because he didn't want someone to be hurt like he was being hurt.

But as a mom to a kid who has a long road of struggles ahead of him, I REALLY object to her violation of his privacy like this. I also object to the concept of autistic people being like the Columbine killers or the others named in her article. My heart breaks for her, it really does, the amount of help available for the mentally ill in this country is so sorely lacking it's criminal. It should not be difficult to get the help needed. Just going to a therapist or admission to a hospital means nothing if the help isn't specific to the disorder. We are woefully behind and we have GOT to catch up.

Sir and/or Madame, this is the Internet and we have a god-given right to talk past each other and get more and more frustrated that we're completely failing to communicate when in fact we are probably in agreement.

Mr. Fisher,
If only Jesus would have kept a security team He wouldn't have been crucified. Jesus cried out why hath you abandoned me?
I suggest you take this up with God about God in classrooms and lots of guns there. I'm sure if He really talks to you, You aren't going to like the answer.

I saw that post "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" when it came out, and to be honest it creeped me out. Saw a lot of people linking to it, but I did not like it.

I appreciated her description of what her day can be like and lack of help available to her. Everyone needs to feel safe in their home, and the only option she has is to call 911 and have him arrested when he acts-out. That is just wrong. No one should live in a private hell like she does.

I've see a lot of complaints about privacy, the parent's and the child's. I think there is a fine line between privacy and secrets. If we can't network with friends and neighbors about depression, anxiety, addiction and psychosis the way we do about alzheimers, heart disease and diabetes, how can we get the help we need? Maybe it's more of a female communication thing.

If my story can help someone, my friends know they can talk about it to anyone. Give them my phone number whatever. I can't see change happening any other way.

Sir and/or Madame, this is the Internet and we have a god-given right to talk past each other and get more and more frustrated that we're completely failing to communicate when in fact we are probably in agreement.

the NRA, Brian Fischer and Victoria Jackson need to accept that humans are humans. They are going to violent, and they are going to make babies. We can do what we can to prevent that without infringing on rights. No one needs a semi-automatic weapon and we aren't going to bring on the Rapture by teaching Evolution or Reproductive Biology.

When anyone who isn't a white and relatively well-off man strides into a public place and guns down innocent civilians, we attack his race and/or religious beliefs before we bury his victims in the ground. But when yet another privileged white guy storms into a school or movie theater and kills dozens of people, we assume there's something wrong with his brain instead of wondering whether his murderous rage has anything to do with good ol' American macho entitlement. Are we ready to talk about it yet? Let's.

My first response was empathy. It is difficult to get the right kind of help, if you have no money or any decent healthcare coverage, you will fall through the cracks without an advocate and help.

But then after I finished reading the essay, I got mad at the mom for the flagrant violation of her son's privacy. I would argue that it's her job to protect him, even if he scares her. It's not at all difficult to write under a pen name, nor is it hard to change a couple details to protect privacy. At best it's challenging and heartbreaking to raise a kid with any kind of disability or serious health issue, mental or physical. At worst, well, I don't want to think about that. At the very least she owes her son a huge apology.

The Disinformation Age is upon us. I'm starting to get to the point where I"m thinking of reducing my FB list of friends to only the closest friends and family. As much as I like seeing old friends and acquaintances get a little older, fatter, happier, and have their kids, the idiocy is starting to wear on me.

So, it appears that the media has now decided that Adam Lanza was "mentally ill." Did I miss something or was this actually established somewhere? I've seen articles that describe him as having Asperger's Syndrome, but that's not the same thing as "mental illness."

It seems to me that this label of "mentally ill" is being put on him right now just because he did something so evil that people can't understand it in any other way except to make the killer an "other," someone not like them. Mentally ill.

But I don't believe it's right to say that committing horrible crimes is an automatic indicator of mental illness. Human beings can and do choose to commit evil acts without being crazy.

And I appreciated hearing it. I had no idea parents (at least in her state) had so few options.

See, that's where her whole train of thought derailed, because Nancy Lanza had the money and resources to get Adam help, and from all information so far, chose not and even yanked him out of school when the system began to think there was something deeper to his behavior than just being socially awkward. By the time she was about ready to admit something was up, he was already over 18 and there would be no real way to get him help without involuntarily having him committed.

Imagine being the kid, and reading that your mother thinks you're going to go and massacre a bunch of children one day. Imagine that.

I can't think of a better way to actually drive a kid to go murder than what she's done.

And by identifying him on the Internet, she has set this kid up to be hurt badly. How are his classmates and teachers going to be treating him now? What happens in a few very short years when he wants to get a job?

Mentally ill can cover a broad range, too. I definitely had PTSD, arguably still have it. Does that mean if I decide that some group of people have wronged me and go and shoot them all I'll be described as 'mentally ill'? What if I'm just a selfish, cruel asshole?

What's weird is this used to be the position that was mocked as the touchy-feely leftists position, that criminals were just crazy. It used to be the 'right wing' that insisted on the reality of evil.

Some bloggers blog to express their feelings and try to work through their issues.

My own reflective thought on Ms. Long's piece:

There are some people who truly do need to be institutionalized medium to long-term. Her son may be one of them. Some people really have problems large enough that they need to be kept in a controlled environment until they can get better, if they can (for a few cannot). And frankly, Americans need to make ourselves willing to fund that care, either via insurance or via taxes.

Will that stop all mass murders? No, but it'll stop some of them and it might reduce the amount of pain and woe that a serious mental illness can cause. Independent of any action on guns, we ought to do it.

Ever since Obama won re-election various spittle spewing blabberjabbers on the right have been hollering about how his supporters voted for more free stuff. Well, I have news for all of them. I voted for Obama and……………… my free stuff came in the mail just this very morning!

I got a Che’ Guevara T-shirt and matching beret’, a map of Kenya, copies of both the Quran and the Communist Manifesto, and a really nice ACORN keychain and pen/pencil set.

So, it appears that the media has now decided that Adam Lanza was "mentally ill." Did I miss something or was this actually established somewhere? I've seen articles that describe him as having Asperger's Syndrome, but that's not the same thing as "mental illness."

It seems to me that this label of "mentally ill" is being put on him right now just because he did something so evil that people can't understand it in any other way except to make the killer an "other," someone not like them. Mentally ill.

But I don't believe it's right to say that committing horrible crimes is an automatic indicator of mental illness. Human beings can and do choose to commit evil acts without being crazy.

3-5% of all crimes in this country are committed by the mentally ill, yet whenever there's a mass shooting, the media immediately starts asking everybody who knew the shooter "Was there anything 'different' about him?" And if you ask enough people, you're going to get people who say "Yeah, he was real quiet."

Even if we take their argument on face value, that G-d doesn't go where he's not wanted, then we have to assume that they believe G-d punishes children for the behavior of their parents. Surely, he can't be blaming the kids for (for example) taking the "10 commandments" out of the schools, etc.

See, that's where her whole train of thought derailed, because Nancy Lanza had the money and resources to get Adam help, and from all information so far, chose not and even yanked him out of school when the system began to think there was something deeper to his behavior than just being socially awkward. By the time she was about ready to admit something was up, he was already over 18 and there would be no real way to get him help without involuntarily having him committed.

To quote the final part of the article TP posted:

Relatives, friends, and acquaintances have come forward since Friday's tragedy to describe Lanza's real mother Nancy as a gun-loving survivalist who feared the imminent collapse of the world economy and home-schooled her troubled, autistic son and "battled" with Newtown's public school system.

For some people, mental illness is a placeholder to explain what happened so they can rationalize it. For others, it's a placeholder to rationalize their worldview to others.

For the latter, that placeholder is meant to exist in perpetuity.

That is pretty much it in a nutshell, we feel a need to rationalize such behavior, which we're taught from childhood is not something a "sane" person does, by saying that the gunman had to have "insane." It's especially easy when they're dead, making interviewing them and testing them impossible.

I saw that post "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" when it came out, and to be honest it creeped me out. Saw a lot of people linking to it, but I did not like it.

Here's why I don't like it.

It's lazy pseudo-logic to take her experiences and extrapolate them onto mass shooters and their families. Sorry, but even if she's writing with every best intention in the world that remains the case. If taken at face value, the post describes conduct disorder...which is the pediatric precursor to antisocial personality disorder. Guess what we don't find consistently as a feature of mass shooters? So the entire premise is a false correlation.

Honestly--and this is more out on a limb--there's two other interrelated things that make me skeptical. The first is that her blog has never touched on this subject before...but maybe that's just her filtering her experience. But prior to this she's griped about her son in "normal" terms.

The second is her description of "treatment" which a hazy and vague to the point of making me think we're reading hyperbole. Threats and violence of the kind she describes, if a consistent non-contexualized trend, mean conduct disorder. Period. No vague wishy-washy "I get a bunch of diagnoses, but no therapy works." If the violent behavior had some kind of arc of incidence--a trauma, a disruption, then there'd be talk of depression, anxiety, misplaced anger, et cetera...but we're not presented with that. If the diagnosis is anything other than conduct disorder, her post is hyperbolic and incredibly harmful to her son, both settling a damning stigma on him.

But all the technical stuff aside, she's inserted herself into the tragedy of others. She's eliciting pity for her situation, and pleading for understanding of her situation by fabricating a connection to a larger tragedy. It really doesn't matter if the versimilitude is real or fake, it's just bad fucking form to sponge of an event like Newtown.

Adam Lanza had no history of violence at all, by the way. How would better mental health care have helped in this situation? He wasn't aggressive, had no police record or any other indicators that he would do something like this.

Do you not think people can choose to be evil? Do you think that all the Nazis were just crazy? All the people that gunned down Jews? Everyone in Rwanda all went insane? The Sandanistas and the Contras-- just cases of mental illness? Hamas are all paranoid schizophrenics?

Evil exists. People can use free will and decided to to terrible, unconscionable things.

That person got ripped off. I got all that stuff, PLUS an Obamaphone, PLUS 6 different voter registration cards with different names and details, PLUS a year's supply of RU-486, PLUS a thick stack of $100 bills with a note that said they were taken directly from the paychecks of blue-collar tea partiers.

The trick is, don't pay it. That will prove your dedication to freeloading, and rather than go to a collection agency, that's when your Free Stuff From The Government will kick in and all your goodies will arrive.

And for that matter, how do we know that he wasn't already receiving good mental health care? Apparently the husband's alimony payments were over $200,000 a year, and you can get pretty good health care with that kind of income.

A person may suffer from mental illness(es) and yet can easily distinguish between right and wrong.

Most fall into that category.

Yes, there are psychotic, certain varieties of schizophrenics and others who may indeed be detached from the real world but even then, very few of them commit these kinds of profound violence.

Most of the atrocities we see today- anywhere- are committed by 'normal people' who have been swept up into a cause or dysfunctional belief system. They are fully functional, they have families and are otherwise normal.

Just because mental illness didn't contribute to the accident tragedy, doesn't mean the right wing shouldn't be pressured to support better mental health care for Americans. They are the ones bringing it up.

Even if we take their argument on face value, that G-d doesn't go where he's not wanted, then we have to assume that they believe G-d punishes children for the behavior of their parents. Surely, he can't be blaming the kids for (for example) taking the "10 commandments" out of the schools, etc.

Exodus 20:5 -

I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.

Adam Lanza had no history of violence at all, by the way. How would better mental health care have helped in this situation? He wasn't aggressive, had no police record or any other indicators that he would do something like this.

Hell, even if he was ill, there's no indication he was always that way. For all we know, he was a perfectly normal kid whose mother screwed his head up when she yanked him out of public school and home-schooled him at some of the most important years in a teens life.

Do you think the Ingush & Chechen Islamist separatist militants responsible for the siege that led to the deaths of 186 children in Beslan were mentally ill? Are drug traffickers who murder & mutilate the families of those who betray them mentally ill? Are all terrorists & criminals mentally ill because they do things that no "mentally healthy" person would even consider?

If whatever makes a man willing to kill like that is not a mental illness in the books, psychology has some important work to do. IMHO.

Reducing the number of killers should go hand in hand with making it more difficult for them to be killers. I don't think I'm distracting anyone from anything worthwhile to assert this.

I pay no attention to those trying to make a distraction. I try to deny them that via deliberately ignoring them. Their media/meme/partisan resonance means nothing to me as far as analyzing how to keep this from happening again goes. To me everything relevant is on the table.

Distortions & deliberate distractions are highly relevant to understanding who the liars, extreme advocates and partisans are. They are utterly irrelevant to the actual facts and circumstances of the shoot.

Just because mental illness didn't contribute to the accident tragedy, doesn't mean the right wing shouldn't be pressured to support better mental health care for Americans. They are the ones bringing it up.

Hell, even if he was ill, there's no indication he was always that way. For all we know, he was a perfectly normal kid whose mother screwed his head up when she yanked him out of public school and home-schooled him at some of the most important years in a teens life.

Since she was the first one he took out, he doesn't seem to have much appreciated her sacrifices on his behalf.

Do you think the Ingush & Chechen Islamist separatist militants responsible for the siege that led to the deaths of 186 children in Beslan were mentally ill? Are drug traffickers who murder & mutilate the families of those who betray them mentally ill? Are all terrorists & criminals mentally ill because they do things that no "mentally healthy" person would even consider?

And for that matter, how do we know that he wasn't already receiving good mental health care? Apparently the husband's alimony payments were over $200,000 a year, and you can get pretty good health care with that kind of income.

Broadly speaking, are social safety net is far less supportive than in most developed western countries. We tend stigmatize those who need mental health, preferring that our mentally ill be homeless so we can blame them for being "lazy".

Yes, the right wing is using this to distract from the need for appropriate gun legislation, but let's not pretend we don't need better mental health care, health care period, in this country.

Mentally ill people make up a tiny percentage of the violent crime in this country.

If what you're saying is that you think anyone who kills a sufficiently large number of people must be mentally ill because you're saying "killing X number of people" is a diagnostic criteria for insanity, that's not really that helpful. For one thing, it's only something diagnosable in retrospect.

People can choose to do evil things out of anger and revenge. To call it insanity is to deny free choice. Humans are capable of great personal sacrifice, bravery, and selflessness. They are also capable of great spitefulness, cowardice, and selfishness. It's who we are.

Under some circumstances I would enjoy the irony of the fact that those words about "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children" are from the very 10 Commandments that right wingers want posted in all our schools.

If whatever makes a man willing to kill like that is not a mental illness in the books, psychology has some important work to do. IMHO

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

Do you think the Ingush & Chechen Islamist separatist militants responsible for the siege that led to the deaths of 186 children in Beslan were mentally ill? Are drug traffickers who murder & mutilate the families of those who betray them mentally ill? Are all terrorists & criminals mentally ill because they do things that no "mentally healthy" person would even consider?

Something separates a mass killer of children from most of the rest of us. Total up all the serial and mass killers and see what % of the human population that is. The fact we have so little idea of what that something is points a red arrow at knowledge needed.

Again, hand in hand with reducing the ability given new gun regulation goes the idea of reducing the number of killers. Flip this over-Who would argue that is a bad idea as long as that work is in parallel with reducing the means?

Isn't it legitimate to consider why we have so many mass killing attempts [in the U.S., I mean]?

Although, given that one reasonable theory is that each mass killing spawns multiple other mass killings, by feeding into the delusional fantasies of the killer, maybe the reason we have so many is that they are so deadly, and therefore get coverage.

In other words, maybe the guns really are causing the outbreak, by simply facilitating the killing, and therefore the media coverage.

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

Agreed. I'd add that conflating evil and mental illness is extremely harmful, because it increases the already high levels of stigmatization of mental illness that we already have.

Under some circumstances I would enjoy the irony of the fact that those words about "visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children" are from the very 10 Commandments that right wingers want posted in all our schools.

But not this week.

I was also thinking that if the God of the Bible is willing to punish the descendants of those who have affronted him, isn't that the complete opposite of "free will?"

In other words, if you're going to punish a child for the "sins of the father," how can it logically follow that that child has free will?

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

The military has spent centuries teaching people how to be willing and able to kill. "Brainwashed" is the answer there. Our own soldiers difficulty returning to normal life also backs this up. Don't think I'm saying he is innocent by reason of insanity. That is a whole other standard.

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

I don't think Brievik or McVeigh were mentally ill, nor was Hitler. They were purely evil.

That's letting the Nazis off really, really, really, really easy. You really are saying they were all brainwashed, those who murdered Jews and dropped the bodies into ditches? No culpability for them? They were brainwashed, couldn't help themselves?

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

I'd argue that what happened in Newtown (as far as I understand it) wasn't evil. Lanza does not appear to have been trying to accomplish anything that makes any sense.

I don't think Brievik or McVeigh were mentally ill, nor was Hitler. They were purely evil.

Brevik? Maybe he was.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists examined Breivik prior to his trial; in the first report Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia,[22] and a second evaluation was commissioned following widespread criticism of the first report.[23] The second psychiatric evaluation was published one week before the trial, concluding that Breivik was not psychotic during the attacks nor during the evaluation;[24] he was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.[25] His trial began on 16 April 2012, and closing arguments were held on 22 June.[26]

Something separates a mass killer of children from most of the rest of us. Total up all the serial and mass killers and see what % of the human population that is. The fact we have so little idea of what that something is points a red arrow at knowledge needed.

Again, hand in hand with reducing the ability given new gun regulation goes the idea of reducing the number of killers. Flip this over-Who would argue that is a bad idea as long as that work is in parallel with reducing the means?

Why not both?

I have no problem with both, but that's not where the right is headed with this, they're trying to deflect.

If they're serious, then the GOP should insist that the Dems immediately sit down with them and begin working to come up with proposed legislation & a budget that will make better mental health care & diagnosis a reality. Presumably, the gun manufacturers & NRA would happily support this and even be willing to contribute generously to such a great & much needed effort.

On April 21, 1945, Inouye was grievously wounded while leading an assault on a heavily-defended ridge near San Terenzo in Tuscany, Italy called Colle Musatello. The ridge served as a strongpoint along the strip of German fortifications known as the Gothic Line, which represented the last and most dogged line of German defensive works in Italy. As he led his platoon in a flanking maneuver, three German machine guns opened fire from covered positions just 40 yards away, pinning his men to the ground. Inouye stood up to attack and was shot in the stomach; ignoring his wound, he proceeded to attack and destroy the first machine gun nest with hand grenades and fire from his Thompson submachine gun. After being informed of the severity of his wound by his platoon sergeant, he refused treatment and rallied his men for an attack on the second machine gun position, which he also successfully destroyed before collapsing from blood loss.

As his squad distracted the third machine gunner, Inouye crawled toward the final bunker, eventually drawing within 10 yards. As he raised himself up and cocked his arm to throw his last grenade into the fighting position, a German inside fired a rifle grenade that struck him on the right elbow, severing most of his arm and leaving his own primed grenade reflexively "clenched in a fist that suddenly didn't belong to me anymore".[13] Inouye's horrified soldiers moved to his aid, but he shouted for them to keep back out of fear his severed fist would involuntarily relax and drop the grenade. As the German inside the bunker reloaded his rifle, Inouye pried the live grenade from his useless right hand and transferred it to his left. As the German aimed his rifle to finish him off, Inouye tossed the grenade off-hand into the bunker and destroyed it. He stumbled to his feet and continued forward, silencing the last German resistance with a one-handed burst from his Thompson before being wounded in the leg and tumbling unconscious to the bottom of the ridge. When he awoke to see the concerned men of his platoon hovering over him, his only comment before being carried away was to gruffly order them to return to their positions, since, as he pointed out, "nobody called off the war!"[14]

The remainder of Inouye's mutilated right arm was later amputated at a field hospital without proper anesthesia, as he had been given too much morphine at an aid station and it was feared any more would lower his blood pressure enough to kill him.

The only action the GOP intends to take is the necessary few weeks of hand wringing. As their staunchest fans have already explained under the various slimy rocks of the internet, 20 dead kids is just the price we have to pay for freedom.

Brevik? Maybe he was.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Two teams of court-appointed psychiatrists examined Breivik prior to his trial; in the first report Breivik was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia,[22] and a second evaluation was commissioned following widespread criticism of the first report.[23] The second psychiatric evaluation was published one week before the trial, concluding that Breivik was not psychotic during the attacks nor during the evaluation;[24] he was diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder.[25] His trial began on 16 April 2012, and closing arguments were held on 22 June.[26]

Yeah, in Brevik's case I'd say he is simply evil. He has chosen to walk the path of the damned.

That's letting the Nazis off really, really, really, really easy. You really are saying they were all brainwashed, those who murdered Jews and dropped the bodies into ditches? No culpability for them? They were brainwashed, couldn't help themselves?

If not, what the fuck do you mean by brainwashed?

I meant trained and coerced and forced to do the deed. Propaganda writ large. Absent Nazi propaganda and military/SS training, how many of those soldiers do you think would have been fine with atrocities? The same number or none or just a few?

Was every single soldier in Nazi Germany's Einsatzgruppen "mentally ill?" Because the atrocities they committed far exceeded the Newtown massacre - and they did it every single day, for months on end, and sent postcards to their families showing them doing it.

I just think it's a facile and intellectually lazy cop-out to automatically equate evil deeds with mental illness.

The SS and the Einsatzgruppen were especially selected for their cruelty and utter lack of compassion. Ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers who showed the tiniest spark of humanity were sent off to die at Stalingrad.

But what possible end could Lanza have been hoping to achieve? Brievik wanted to reduce the ranks of those he considered the enemy, and successfully targeted a specific cohort. McVeigh wanted to incite revolution.

But guys like Lanza and Loughner? They appear to have just stepped out into space. There is no philosophy guiding there actions, just fever dreams.

I meant trained and coerced and forced to do the deed. Propaganda writ large. Absent Nazi propaganda and military/SS training, how many of those soldiers do you think would have been fine with atrocities? The same number or none or just a few?

What harm is done with research as i suggest?

Ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers were not sent to commit the genocides, because they couldn't handle it.

They were not coerced and they were not forced, no. I cannot really believe you are forgiving them to that extent.

They made their choices.

Propaganda writ large. Absent Nazi propaganda and military/SS training, how many of those soldiers do you think would have been fine with atrocities? The same number or none or just a few?

Um, going by the history of Europe and people being okay with mass murders of Jews up to that point: The same number. The Nazis didn't invent antisemitism in Europe, or mass slaughter of Jews. They didn't write Luther's savage antisemitic rants that formed a large backbone of European protestantism.

What harm is done with research as i suggest?

Your goal-- to find what makes a killer-- is a phantom. There are many paths to being a killer, including to freely choose of your own will to be a killer. Sure, some people will kill because they're schitzophrenic-- but again, more people will attack schizophrenics than be attacked by them. the mentally ill have more to fear from normal people than we do of them.

Of course people research to try to find warning signs of people who might kill. But there is never going to be some way, absent total violation of privacy rights, of really predicting that.

If whatever makes a man willing to kill like that is not a mental illness in the books, psychology has some important work to do. IMHO.

Reducing the number of killers should go hand in hand with making it more difficult for them to be killers. I don't think I'm distracting anyone from anything worthwhile to assert this.

I pay no attention to those trying to make a distraction. I try to deny them that via deliberately ignoring them. Their media/meme/partisan resonance means nothing to me as far as analyzing how to keep this from happening again goes. To me everything relevant is on the table.

Distortions & deliberate distractions are highly relevant to understanding who the liars, extreme advocates and partisans are. They are utterly irrelevant to the actual facts and circumstances of the shoot.

Yeah. Here's the deal: know how the are terms people unacquainted with firearms use that (a) show they don't know what they're talking about and (b) make people with greater familiarity cringe?

Mentally Ill is the equivalent in psychology/psychiatry. It's a loose generality. The different being that guns are an assembly of standardized parts with a clear set of features and the human mind is a giant black box in which nucleotides and fatty goo creates impossibly convoluted networks of sensory data and impressions...each of which is unique such that our vague notions of neuroanatomy periodical get blasted out the water.

There is no magic bullet on violence coming from craziness. "Sane" and "Mentally Ill" people do horrific shit for terrible illogical reasons, but it doesn't come from mood disorder or delusional thinking; it comes from lack of empathy, lack of critical thinking, the elevation of ego and identity over sense of connectedness, the need to maintain a tribal identity by excising the "other."

I have no problem with both, but that's not where the right is headed with this, they're trying to deflect.

If they're serious, then the GOP should insist that the Dems immediately sit down with them and begin working to come up with proposed legislation & a budget that will make better mental health care & diagnosis a reality. Presumably, the gun manufacturers & NRA would happily support this and even be willing to contribute generously to such a great & much needed effort.

Do I need to mention that I won't be holding my breath? //

CL,
Try to understand that I'm speaking for myself. What I think would help. I do not speak for or support any distractions. Nor do I support the far right. Call me crazy but I can't easily be persuaded that this research is a bad idea. With the caveat it does not interfere with legislation.

I don't burden the left leaning lizards with assumptions of far left extreme ideology behind what they have to say. Not even on those rare occaisions they they agree like "get us out of Iraq".

By and large that works both ways. Sometimes right leaners get burdened with the likes of Fischer and some assumption they agree with him. Well not me.

Exactly. I have PTSD resulting from my rape as a child. Am I "mentally ill"? Should people be worried I'm going to flip out and kill someone? After all, people with PTSD can flip out. And I'm not in therapy.

Ordinary Wehrmacht soldiers were not sent to commit the genocides, because they couldn't handle it.

But they aided in their commission in many cases, even if they didn't pull the trigger. And a great many knew what was going on was mass murder. One mustn't absolve the Wehrmacht, for even ordinary soldiers routinely gunned down civilians in reprisal actions for attacks on German troops.

You know this already, Alouette, and I'm not saying it to be critical of you in any way. But I felt it needed to be said.

But what possible end could Lanza have been hoping to achieve? Brievik wanted to reduce the ranks of those he considered the enemy, and successfully targeted a specific cohort. McVeigh wanted to incite revolution.

But guys like Lanza and Loughner? They appear to have just stepped out into space. There is no philosophy guiding there actions, just fever dreams.

Prior to Brevik being caught, nobody could make sense of his actions either. Laughner has actually been tested and found mentally ill. Adam Lanza was neither caught nor tested. Guessing as to his motives and rational is academic at best.

But they aided in their commission in many cases, even if they didn't pull the trigger. And a great many knew what was going on was mass murder. One mustn't absolve the Wehrmacht, for even ordinary soldiers routinely gunned down civilians in reprisal actions for attacks on German troops.

You know this already, Alouette, and I'm not saying it to be critical of you in any way. But I felt it needed to be said.

I made the distinction between the SS/Einsatzgruppen and the Wehrmacht because the former for especially singled out for their ability to commit atrocities 24/7 and enjoy it.

The guy in our town who was certainly flipped out and killed two people, and then was shot by the swat team; well it was no subtle thing he had or was going through, you could see it coming. By the same token, he could have been helped by Laura's law. Now he is dead too.

Exactly. I have PTSD resulting from my rape as a child. Am I "mentally ill"? Should people be worried I'm going to flip out and kill someone? After all, people with PTSD can flip out. And I'm not in therapy.

We all know you've got a good head on your shoulders, Obdi. You don't need extensive help now, and that's a good thing. I'd want to set things up so that help is available if you ever end up needing it again, that's all. But you're not a threat to others, you makes work harder at being better people. And I thank you for it.

The Einsatzgruppen were the worst of them in my opinion. Their job was just to scour the countryside and slaughter men, women and children indiscriminately, especially but not limited to Jews, in horrific mass executions and in one-on-one murders. They were an army of berserk serial killers with state approval.

I have a book about them somewhere that I never finished because I couldn't read it any more.

If the only unifying thing in defining 'mental illness' is people doing horrible shit, we might as well call them purple potatoes for all the use of such a contorted concept.

Like the rest of the kinds of illness, can we maybe stick with things that have well-defined and moderately repeatable signs, symptoms and, when we're able, treatments?

At the moment we might as well diagnose Lanza with Bad Humours.

Agreed. It may also be useful to consider what might suffice for an insanity defense at trial. Delusions (e.g., a psychotic break) or inability to distinguish right from wrong might be defenses. The personality disorders (sociopathy, narcissism etc.) would not appear to provide an insanity defense. E.g., a sociopath is typically aware of right and wrong, but just doesn't care. That story should not impress the jury.

Your goal-- to find what makes a killer-- is a phantom.
What 'research' do you want done, exactly? Cite something specific.

Science if chock full of data that was once a phantom. Thought to be impossible to discover. The human mind & brain is a tough subject. I get that. I did cite a specific area. You just don't approve of it. I make a case for that research. Reducing the number of killers.

Exactly. I have PTSD resulting from my rape as a child. Am I "mentally ill"? Should people be worried I'm going to flip out and kill someone? After all, people with PTSD can flip out. And I'm not in therapy.

But we agree that some mentally ill people (degree and kind of illness matters of course) must be excluded from gun purchases. Right?

The Einsatzgruppen were the worst of them in my opinion. Their job was just to scour the countryside and slaughter men, women and children indiscriminately, especially but not limited to Jews, in horrific mass executions and in one-on-one murders. They were an army of berserk serial killers with state approval.

I have a book about them somewhere that I never finished because I couldn't read it any more.

I think what the nazis did was worse in scale, but at core it is what man has been doing throughout most of our history. Identify the "others" and subjugate or kill them. We recognize this now as evil, but it isn't really all that different from what NZ tribesman did to the next village over. (Not picking on NZ, it's the same throughout history.)

Science if chock full of data that was once a phantom. Thought to be impossible to discover. The human mind & brain is a tough subject. I get that. I did cite a specific area. You just don't approve of it. I make a case for that research. Reducing the number of killers.

That you think that is a specific area "find out what makes people kill" is just fucking mindboggling. Slightly less mindboggling than learning you believe the Nazis who slaughtered Jews were just brainwashed, trained, coerced, and forced, but still fucking mindboggling.

That is not specific. Science doesn't work like that. You can't find 'what makes people happy' or 'what makes people kill' because we're complex as all fuck, there's a thousand paths, and there's free will.

You keep saying I'm against 'this research'. I have no fucking clue what research you're talking about. I'm entirely for research into helping the mentally ill. I am not for funding someone who's idea of a scentific inquiry is "I'm going to find out what makes killers kill" when we already have sufficient evidence to say "There are very large numbers of reasons why people kill, with no unifying theme or mental disorder."

But we agree that some mentally ill people (degree and kind of illness matters of course) must be excluded from gun purchases. Right?

Sure. That's about ten zillion miles away from "What makes someone a killer". We wouldn't allow a paranoid schizophrenic to own a handgun, but a paranoid schizophrenic still has a very low chance of murdering someone-- lower then their own chance of being murdered.

You're talking about two completely unrelated things: disallowing people we know to be severely mentally ill in some way that impairs their ability to use a weapon responsibly, and 'figuring out what makes someone kill'.

I what the nazis did was worse in scale, but at core it is what man has been doing throughout most of our history. Identify the "others" and subjugate or kill them. We recognize this now as evil, but it isn't really all that different from what NZ tribesman did to the next village over. (Not picking on NZ, it's the same throughout history.)

Hence my point about Lanza, it's hard as hell to tell what he was thinking when he went into that school. Considering info about his mother trickling in (admittedly from secondary sources) painting her as not all that right in the head herself, it's hard to say what he was thinking when he went to that school. He may very well have been in the mindset of Brevik, thinking those kids were the "other" he'd been taught to fear or despise and chose to kill them.

CL,
Try to understand that I'm speaking for myself. What I think would help. I do not speak for or support any distractions. Nor do I support the far right. Call me crazy but I can't easily be persuaded that this research is a bad idea. With the caveat it does not interfere with legislation.

I don't burden the left leaning lizards with assumptions of far left extreme ideology behind what they have to say. Not even on those rare occaisions they they agree like "get us out of Iraq".

By and large that works both ways. Sometimes right leaners get burdened with the likes of Fischer and some assumption they agree with him. Well not me.

I'm aware of that and I'm not burdening you with wingnut ideology, but the discussion around here has been about exactly that (as it relates to deflecting to anything BUT guns).

As I've said before, the 66 people currently viewing this thread aren't the only ones who are (or who will be) reading it, so when you make a statement such as the one you made in your #179 it needs qualification, IMO. Had you started out with your #218, I wouldn't have said anything. Capisce?

It's nothing personal. I don't take it exception to things people point out that I may find uncomfortable, obvious, redundant, etc. when we're discussing Islam & Muslims in relation to acts of terrorism unless someone begins broad-brushing or implying that I personally am acting as an apologist, or if they assign views to me that I don't hold. I don't think I did that with you... or did I?

In February 2009, a bill was filed in the Philippine House of Representatives by Rep. Antonio Diaz seeking to confer honorary Filipino citizenship on Inouye, Senators Ted Stevens and Daniel Akaka and Representative Bob Filner, for their role in securing the passage of benefits for Filipino World War II veterans.

And yeah, I know Ted Stevens is in there, but dammit, he was in the right on this too. Inoyue did more than almost anyone else to lobby for Fillipino veterans to get benefits. His reasoning-- as was my grandfathers-- was that they had followed American plans of battle, under American generals, and we spent their blood along with ours.

Also, given the animus between Fillipinos and Japanese, so honoring Inoyue was a very significant gesture.

I think that the fact that Fischer only disagreed with the selected targets in Connecticut and not particularly the act itself, says volumes more to his morality than any statement that I could make. Not only has he given ideological cover to terrorists like Eric Rudolph, Scott Roeder, and Anders Breivik, he has no problem with the commission of violent felonies to achieve his demented goals.American Family Association Spokesman Fischer: Child Kidnapper Is ‘Obeying God Rather Than Man’

We're such complex creatures that there's never going to be one pat answer as to why or what causes a person to do awful things or what kinds of things cause mental illnesses of all kinds. What works or applies to one person simply won't apply to all. The concept of warehousing people who need help is a danger we need to avoid in all this too. We're looking at decades of work, we need to shore up the infrastructure that's in place and find ways to get people the help they need. No parent should have to face putting a child in jail just for a HOPE of a chance they'll get help. Dear God, that's the LAST thing that should be happening,but it's sadly the only thing available in many parts of the country.

I still believe that we have some serious work to do as a culture too. We simply have to stop this fetish with violence and redefine what the hell "manly"means,or just do away with the concept of that altogether. We're destroying each other with this shit. Our schools are also not fostering a sense of community among our children either, especially in middle and high schools. IMO, 2000 kids in a building isn't conducive to keeping bullies in check and it sure as hell isn't helping the kids who need it most. A kid has to have a serious disability or behavioral issue in order to get the most basic of services, and that rarely includes mental health issues. I don't know what the answers are, but we're missing some big things here and we need to figure out ways to stop the suffering.

Hence my point about Lanza, it's hard as hell to tell what he was thinking when he went into that school. Considering info about his mother trickling in (admittedly from secondary sources) painting her as not all that right in the head herself, it's hard to say what he was thinking when he went to that school. He may very well have been in the mindset of Brevik, thinking those kids were the "other" he'd been taught to fear or despise and chose to kill them.

Mmmm, I admit you have a point, but the odds aren't great that he had any rationale that was connected to reality

I meant trained and coerced and forced to do the deed. Propaganda writ large. Absent Nazi propaganda and military/SS training, how many of those soldiers do you think would have been fine with atrocities? The same number or none or just a few?

What harm is done with research as i suggest?

A lot of research has been done, and is being done, on the subject of aggression and violence.

The problem is, is doesn't work the way you're proposing. Attempts to find an arc of traits that make a killer stand out from a sampling of "normal" people have so far failed. Magic bullets keep being asserted--the XYY chromotype, the HB/BP drop under stress--and overturned. Even attempts to create a "profile" of specific types of killers--serial killers, spree shooters--haven't worked very well. Hell the entire realm of "serial killer profilling" has gotten savagely debunked in the last decade.

The best that been achieved is a sort of "probably these features are present" list...with the proviso that the same bundle of traits/symptoms are also held by millions of people who aren't spree shooters/serial bombers/et cetera. Brutalization theory, for example, goes a long way to explaining the environment and social forces that shape a hardened killer, and does a great job explaining wartime atrocities, but it can't claim perfect accuracy because there's so many individuals that don't become hardened killers.

The best we got in what I'd call intersectional effects: combine a menu of biological traits, environmental conditions, and social learning and you're more likely to get a killer...but maybe not. Case in point: spree killers. In theory they're depressed, white, male, have an external locus of controls, and a few other things. We can make those traits "stick" retroactively to a lot of spree killers. The bad news? Hundreds of thousands of depressed white men have pretty much the same profile and cradle-to-grave aren't violent monsters. We haven't achieved predictive value.

And study of the subject can't advance just because there's money and interest. "More data" means that first a crime has to happen and them maybe you can collect data from investigative organizations and maybe interview people. It means trying to winnow validity from anecdotal evidence, truth from recollections colored by society's existing stereotypes and tropes about these crimes.

When you referenced the RWNJ's, that made it a good time to separate myself from them. I took no offense at all. My 179 is just an honest question. Just trying to point to that something that keeps most of us from killing, and not others. Sometimes brevity is not my friend. So #218

Be well CL. I'm moving on with some work, I made my case as well as I know how. Those 66 logged will hopefully take it as intended. My bottom line-Leave no stone unturned in options for keeping this from happening again. Obdi may be right no amount of research will help. I'm just too reluctant to give that avenue up yet. Dings or not.

Fischer and his ilk "believe" (religiously speaking, without thought) in the 2nd amendment, but in the first only as long as they agree with whatever is said.

I did an experiment and signed up with weird nut daily three times and responded, without 4 letter words, or death threats, to some of the more obscenely amoral comments there, made in the name of an equally obscene god. You know, stuff like calling for death to homosexuals, praising their petty god for staying out of things like this massacre because "it" was principled, and of course the bit about the guns being all between us and the Taliban, or more commonly, Hitler.

I was promptly banned and all posts deleted very quickly. The American Taliban is alive and well in Fischer and Co.

And by the way, I think we just Godwinned this thread all the way out.

I'd say we haven't. We haven't thrown around accusations, we've been discussing the matter of what drives people to evil. Given the high level of historical knowledge at LGF, it was inevitable that the crimes of the Nazis would be discussed as part of such a larger discussion.

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business.

Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex marriage.

Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation.

This part stuck out:

Faced anti-Japanese discrimination after WWII

[After he spent 20 months in hospitals recovering from war wounds fighting with the 442nd Regimental Combat Team in Europe], on a layover in Oakland, California , on his way back to Hawaii, he decided he wanted to get, as he puts it "all gussied up so when I got home Mama and Papa would see me in all my glory. I went into an Oakland barbershop--four empty chairs--and a barber comes up to me and wants to know if I'm Japanese. Keep in mind I'm in uniform with my medals and ribbons and a hook for an arm. I said, 'Well my father was born in Japan.' The barber replied, 'We don't cut Jap hair.' I was tempted to slash him with my hook," [from the arm he had lost in battle], "but then I thought about all the work the 442nd had done and I just said, 'I feel sorry for you,' and walked out. I went home without a haircut."

Just want to note that although the video by Fischer is asking a question, "Comments are disabled for this video." on youtube. Not a real question. But what about these guys is real, other than their attention seeking?

By the way, since the topic has been GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ for the past 3 days, in the interest of full disclosure I should say that I'm no longer a gun owner. I sold my almost new Mossberg back to the gun store a few months ago.

I bought it (and took some classes and fired it a few times just to be familiar with it) when I was being openly stalked and threatened on the Internet by neo-Nazi Bill White (who later went to prison), because he was inciting his followers on Overthrow.com to find my home address and my family's addresses and take 'direct action.' Never liked having it around.

Well, McArdle is certainly consistent. Since any/all kind of government action is unthinkable to a libertarian, the only thing that is left is to suggest that the children of America be trained to mob rush armed assailants. Behold the glory of liberty in action.

Normal human beings might hesitate to express such a stupid point of view shortly after such a tragedy. However, Megan McArdle has no such inhibitions.

In response, I'd like to propose that she go off to Somalia and start engaging in machete duels as an expression of liberty.

Are you kidding me? You think gun control is impractical, so your plan is to turn the entire national population, including young children, into a standby suicide squad? Through private initiative, of course. It’s way more feasible than gun control!

So, it appears that the media has now decided that Adam Lanza was "mentally ill." Did I miss something or was this actually established somewhere? I've seen articles that describe him as having Asperger's Syndrome, but that's not the same thing as "mental illness."

It seems to me that this label of "mentally ill" is being put on him right now just because he did something so evil that people can't understand it in any other way except to make the killer an "other," someone not like them. Mentally ill.

But I don't believe it's right to say that committing horrible crimes is an automatic indicator of mental illness. Human beings can and do choose to commit evil acts without being crazy.

So, it appears that the media has now decided that Adam Lanza was "mentally ill." Did I miss something or was this actually established somewhere? I've seen articles that describe him as having Asperger's Syndrome, but that's not the same thing as "mental illness."

It seems to me that this label of "mentally ill" is being put on him right now just because he did something so evil that people can't understand it in any other way except to make the killer an "other," someone not like them. Mentally ill.

But I don't believe it's right to say that committing horrible crimes is an automatic indicator of mental illness. Human beings can and do choose to commit evil acts without being crazy.

Certain wingnuts are going to some effort to point out that the .223 cartridge used by the Newtown killer is illegal, not powerful enough, for hunting big game in many states.
A typical specimen at Free Republic

We are now hearing 24/7 ad nauseum about how the AR-15 is practically a WMD according to the media.....yet in Washington state it is not even allowed for hunting because the caliber is too small to be considered ethical.
Information like this needs to get out there.

Certain wingnuts are going to some effort to point out that the .223 cartridge used by the Newtown killer is illegal, not powerful enough, for hunting big game in many states.
A typical specimen at Free Republic

So, I had to see if that McArdle article was for real, and found quite possibly the stupidest comment I have ever seen:

Great article. However, you strangely avoid a very realistic, legal and practical way to make ourselves and our children safer. A method even Jeffery Goldberg (surprisingly) endorses. More guns. More guns in the hands of those most likely to use them wisely, for self defense and the defense of those in their care. You state that legal gun owners "...are vanishingly unlikely to commit a crime with it." Why not arm selected teachers, custodians and administrators (just like arming pilots after 9/11). Many would volunteer and, frankly, I much prefer the idea of the custodian shooting it out with a madman instead of my child "gang rushing" him.

As long as O'Reilly is throwing around baseless assumptions, I have a theory that Fox News viewers are more apt to be influenced by violent media because they can't understand the difference between reality and fantasy.

Parsing the technicalities of ballistics and weapons is a tactic to delay or stop debate on gun control. Anybody considering or advocating for gun control can make a mistake: once made, that person 'doesn't know what they are talking about' and by default the conversation about gun control will therefore end.

You know, the more effort gun cultists put into trying to deflect talk about more guns = more violence by pointing to countries like Israel and Switzerland, the more obvious it becomes just how little they know about gun laws outside the US.

But see, that's factually true. What's left unsaid is that the .223 Remington is the base cartridge from which NATO designed the 5.56mm round. They chose it for a lot of reasons, but one big selling point is that it tumbles wildly once it hits something, which causes massive tissue damage if that something happens to be a slab of meat approximately human-sized.

So yes, it's not powerful enough to stop a deer humanely. But that's like saying an 18-wheeler can't go as fast as a Ferrari. It's irrelevant. You don't want to be hit by either one.

However, I just learned that the AR-15 is legal in both Sweden and Finland. Not sure about Norway, but I think the incident last year may answer my question.

Overpenetration is a concern if you are considering a firearm for home defense. If you really want to go that route, a shotgun would be a better choice. I wouldn't consider a rifle of any description for that purpose.

I'm not a gun hater by any stretch, but I think that if someone is thinking "I need to buy a firearm for the specific purpose of defending myself against intruders," they'd do much better to consider moving to a different neighborhood.

Overpenetration is a concern if you are considering a firearm for home defense. If you really want to go that route, a shotgun would be a better choice. I wouldn't consider a rifle of any description for that purpose.

I'm not a gun hater by any stretch, but I think that if someone is thinking "I need to buy a firearm for the specific purpose of defending myself against intruders," they'd do much better to consider moving to a different neighborhood.

But maybe that's the voice of privilege. I don't know.

The only place I ever lived where I really thought I might need a gun was Chicago. It can be a tough city. Even with my recent late night break in here in Portland a gun wasn't a serious consideration for me. They ran when I woke up and that's good enough for me. I invested in a good alarm system that even covers my yard and a few flood lights for under $2,000. Money well spent.

I think it may turn out that Adam Lanza's home-schooling by a parent who was hoarding guns in preparation for the end of civilization was an important factor in this case.

Maybe. But alternatively it could be a sign his mother was trying something new in handling her son because something had changed. Or, sadly, maybe even a mother's attempt to protect her son.

As much as I go on and on about the mental health thing, we're really in a low-information orbit here. Teasing out the few details available you can create a lot of scenarios: mentally ill/not, angry/melancholy, mother homeschools him to protect him/to isolate him.

But not in the main a model for the US. All of them are smaller nations than we in terms of population, and they are much more homogeneous. The US started out very heterogeneous and its only gotten more so over time. So what works there will often not work here and vice versa.

I'm still holding out for more info. Home schooling a special needs child seems like it might be a good idea for those with the resources to do so.

It does, but the fact she was one of these "survivalist" whackaloons tends to lead to home-schooling for different reasons, i.e. we're going to learn proper technique in how to mow down cannibals with our AR-15 today and proper gas-mask etiquette after nap-time.

Home-schooling in and of itself is not a terrible thing, as KT said, if you have the available resources (she obviously did) and can properly teach your child. But I think the public in general has a poor view of homeschooling because of the negatives associated with it (which I'm sure it's a small %age of the overall, but stigmas are stigmas). It tends to be more associated with religious folks, or anti-school indoctrination nutters, and the general consensus (again, from what I see and hear) is that products of it aren't as socially capable as others.

In addition, I have gotten real tired of that BS Canard. Why not try it? Many of our unique "solutions" are dragging us down. Time to try things that have worked elsewhere, at least for a starting point. The US is exceptional in only 3 ways. By our ability to absorb and integrate others from foreign nations, our flexibility, and our willingness to try new ideas.

I would go as far to say your attitude on this is weakening America. Time to start taking ideas from elsewhere and trying them. I have heard the excuse you just gave in less reputable circles in wanting to weaken welfare and health care as well, so you might want to reconsider that position.

Well If the Kid was WELL TRAINED on how to use it. Why not? We need more guns in schools by WELL TRAINED individuals. I know kids that can out shoot any cop in competitions. If all principals and/or teachers had locked guns in their offices, Many lives can be saved. Also true a few lives may be taken too because some teachers are threatened by students. But that teacher has the right to protect him or herself even in a school. Yes I carry and my kids carry and have been TRAINED how to shoot and the consequenses along side it.

Yeah that is what we need, all the kids over 10 to be carrying guns as well, what could go wrong?

In addition, I have gotten real tired of that BS Canard. Why not try it? Many of our unique "solutions" are dragging us down. Time to try things that have worked elsewhere, at least for a starting point. The US is exceptional in only 3 ways. By our ability to absorb and integrate others from foreign nations, our flexibility, and our willingness to try new ideas.

I would go as far to say your attitude on this is weakening America. Time to start taking ideas from elsewhere and trying them. I have heard the excuse you just gave in less reputable circles in wanting to weaken welfare and health care as well, so you might want to reconsider that position.

I can't believe someone is advocating for arming elementary school students. The insanity just keeps growing.

I was really taken aback by this part...

Also true a few lives may be taken too because some teachers are threatened by students. But that teacher has the right to protect him or herself even in a school.

So he is admitting up front that this would result in teachers shooting students (or vice-versa) in self-defense and he doesn't seem to have any problem with that. Keeping his beloved military grade weaponry is more important to him than turning our schools into shooting galleries I guess.

I came to the thread after comment 456, and have spent the last hour or so scanning the comments. Maybe it's late in the thread, but I want to say a few things.

As for B. Fischer, who should just shut his damn piehole, God is not a gentleman by any stretch of the imagination. He told Mary (by proxy) she was pregnant (by proxy) after the fact. He punished Jonah for disobedience by letting a whale swallow him whole. He wiped out entire cities, told his followers to commit genocide, told Adam and Eve, "Everything here is for you, except those two things over there," then kicked them out of the house and cursed them besides for disobedience. He flooded the entire world.

Some gentleman. You're just like him.

Secondly, Fischer, if God is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, he can fucking go wherever and whenever he likes. Waiting for people to "welcome" him is not part of his job description. You're saying, in other words, that God only hangs out in churches while people are there praying and stuff. The rest of the time he's off, I don't know, playing golf with Zeus or something. I suppose that's when Satan makes his appearances and screws around with us.

Just a little heretical, don't ya think, not to mention self-contradictory?

Liza Long, you've got some serious, personal issues. I raised four kids. Sometimes it wasn't easy. They made me angry and frustrated, too. Maybe Adam Lanza reminds you of your son somehow, but that's no reason to irresponsibly suggest to the Internet that your son might possibly be homicidal someday. Talk about narcissism. It's not all about you!

I got more to vent, but need some time to compose my thoughts. This'll do for now.